Prosecution for Possession of a Bladed Article Stayed as Abuse of Process

Kenniesha Stephens successfully applied to have proceedings for possession of a bladed article stayed at Isleworth Crown Court.

Background

The defendant, an 18-year-old with no previous convictions or contact with the police, was charged after being stopped and searched at Notting Hill Carnival in August 2023, where he was found in possession of a lock knife. The defendant, who was preparing to begin university in September 2023, was remorseful and had admitted to carrying the knife following discussions about receiving a caution as a form of out of court disposal.

At Kentish Town police station, two trainee detectives, aware of the defendant’s lack of criminal history, discussed with the Evidential Reviewing Officer (ERO) the possibility of issuing a simple caution if the defendant gave a full and frank interview. The defendant’s legal representative and the officers disputed the communication during the pre-disclosure conference:

• The officers stated that the police station representative was told that all disposal options were available, including a simple caution;
• The legal representative asserted that the officers gave a clear assurance the defendant would “100%” receive a caution if he admitted to carrying the knife.

Motivated by this assurance, the defendant admitted possession, expressed remorse, and described it as a mistake when he was interviewed. However, after the interview, the Custody Sergeant intervened, pointing to Section 17(3) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which restricts the use of cautions for knife offences unless exceptional circumstances are identified by an Inspector. The caution was withdrawn, and the defendant was charged and remanded, with the matter sent to court.

Application to Stay the Proceedings

The defence in this case, assisted by instructing solicitors, applied to stay the indictment as an abuse of process under the second limb of R v Maxwell [2011] 1 WLR 1837, a state is necessary to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system. The application relied on the principles established in Mansfield v DPP [2021] EWHC 2938 (Admin), which found that the public interest in upholding assurances made by state officials can outweigh the public interest in prosecuting even serious offences.

Arguments Made in accordance with R v Hamza [2006] EWCA Crim 2918

Unequivocal Representation: The officers investigating the case provided an unequivocal representation that the defendant would receive a caution.

1. Defendant’s Detriment: The defendant relied on this assurance to his detriment, changing his account and admitting possession based on the understanding that a caution would be issued.
2. Balancing Exercise: The court had to consider whether proceeding with the prosecution served the public interest or whether upholding the fairness and integrity of the justice system by holding the officers to their assurance took precedence. Particularly, given the defendant’s young age and lack of previous convictions.

Evidence Presented

The application hearing spanned two days, with testimony from the trainee detectives and the defendant’s police station representative. During cross-examination, the lead officer admitted that the possibility of a caution was the primary focus during the investigation. The critical issue centred on the disputed conversation during the pre-disclosure conference and the representation relayed to the defendant.

Decision

The court concluded that:

• The officers’ indication of a caution, as interpreted by the defendant’s legal representative, was unequivocal and acted upon by the defendant.
• The defendant had been misled to his detriment, admitting the offence based on an assurance that was later withdrawn.

In balancing the public interest, the court relied on Mansfield v DPP and Paragraph 38 of the Ministry of Justice’s guidance on simple cautions for adult offenders. It determined that allowing the prosecution to continue would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system, given the significant procedural failings and the reliance placed on the assurance. Clearly, this was a young defendant who was on his way to university. A criminal conviction would have significantly  hampered his opportunity to pursue the career of his choice.

Clearly, it is a serious offence to possess a knife without lawful authority or a reasonable excuse. This is even more so when carried to Notting Hill Carnival, where knife violence is known to be rife. However, it is important that where state officials have made a promise not to prosecute and this is relied upon, this promise should  be upheld, particularly where young defendants and their future employment opportunities will be impacted. The defendant remains a young man of good character.

About the author

Kenniesha Stephens was called to the bar in 2015 and specialises in criminal law.  She is known for her meticulous approach to case preparation and robust representation in both her oral and written advocacy.

‘Kenniesha has super judgement and a forensic mind’ Legal500 2025.

To instruct Kenniesha, contact her clerks, Ryan Bartlett or Amie Harris on 020 7404 1881.